Heating Up

March 08, 2007 | The earth is warming at an unnatural pace, but this isn’t the only climate change that has multiple industries re-assessing their political strategy. As the debate over global warming legislation heats up, the industries that could be most affected by the outcome are taking the temperature of the new Democratic Congress.

“Because [the industries] have to acknowledge they’re operating in a new environment, they’ll court whomever they have to to get a voice at the table,” said Bryan Mignone, a science and technology fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Government affairs people will move with the winds in Washington. If an issue on the Hill affects them, they’ll pay very close attention to it and shift their strategy.”

In February, an international panel of scientists released a report concluding that global warming is caused by human activity and, if human-made emissions of greenhouse gases continue at the current rates, the planet can expect life-threatening and economically devastating events. A new report from the Bush administration released earlier this month predicts that greenhouse emissions by the United States will grow as quickly in the next decade as they did the previous decade.

“Democrats having control means environmentalists will be in the room when they write the legislation. The chances of that when Republicans were in control were zero.”

—Barry Matchett, co-legislative director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center

The newfound consensus on the science—or at least the fact that the planet is warming and humans can make the situation better or worse—now shifts into a conversation about politics. The U.S. government has to figure out actions it can take to limit emissions without harming the economy, and industries must decide how to protect their interests with a new party in charge.

Generally, the debate over whether and how to curb Earth-warming carbon emissions has pitted the oil and gas industry and auto manufacturers against alternative energy producers and environmental groups. Their respective contributions to policymakers reflect that divide.

GLOBAL WARMING: The Players

Political influence of industries in the global warming debate

Contributions, 2001-2006

Percent to Democrats

Percent to Republicans

Lobbying, 2001-2005

Agribusiness

$159,711,080

28%

71%

$448,002,616

Oil&Gas

$73,036,301

19%

81%

$282,566,199

Mining

$14,991,593

17%

83%

$56,032,688

Electric Utilities

$58,240,891

32%

68%

$458,981,375

Environmental Policy

$5,530,261

87%

13%

$43,105,323

Auto Manufacturers

$7,633,671

33%

67%

$177,081,511

Contribution totals include money to candidates, party committees and leadership PACs.

2005-2006 totals based on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election

Commission on February 20, 2007.

Oil and gas companies have aligned themselves with Republicans, giving at least 80 percent of their total contributions to them since the 2002 election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Republican leadership in Congress received 15 times more in contributions on average from the oil industry than Democratic leaders in the 2006 election cycle. Environmental policy groups, on the other hand, have steadfastly supported Democrats with at least 85 percent of their contributions in the same amount of time, according to the Center’s analysis.

In actual dollar amounts, the disparity is immense. The oil and gas industry contributed at least $20.6 million in the 2006 election cycle—16 times more than environmental policy groups— and spent $63.3 million on lobbying in 2005 (the last year for which complete data is available)—seven times more than environmentalists. Exxon Mobil reported the largest annual profit on record for a U.S. corporation in 2006, bringing in $39.5 billion. Comparatively, the well-known environmental group, the Sierra Club, reported an income in 2005 of $85.2 million.

The shift from red to blue in Congress certainly doesn’t mean Big Oil has wasted its money on the GOP, but it does change the dynamic of who has a voice in the debate, said Barry Matchett, co-legislative director of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center.

“Democrats having control means environmentalists will be in the room when they write the legislation. The chances of that when Republicans were in control were zero,” Matchett said.

Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations at the Independent Petroleum Association of America said the change in congressional control means only an increased chance of legislation being passed, but not necessarily policy that will hurt the oil and gas industry. “It’s important to realize oil and gas is going to play a key part in what happens. We can’t walk away from oil and gas as we develop these other technologies,” Fuller said. “We’ll try to have a strong voice.”

As the U.S. starts to consider the first steps to catch up to other developed countries in making the planet healthier, the issue has become prominent in American politics. Former vice president Al Gore has made it his flagship issue, using Hollywood and the music industry to promote the scientific community’s concerns. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi formed a new committee to address global warming. Congress has already introduced more than half a dozen new bills on the matter, and earlier this year the president concurred for the first time that Earth is, indeed, warming. Twelve states have approved legislation that forces carmakers to decrease emissions, and at least 23 states have mandated a minimum amount of power that must come from renewable resources.

Perhaps nowhere in Congress is the changing tide more evident than in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is chaired since last year’s election by California Sen. Barbara Boxer, considered one of the environment’s biggest champions. Boxer replaced Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who once called global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” He is now the committee’s ranking member. In the last three election cycles, Boxer has received a total of at least $122,330 in contributions from environmental policy groups; Inhofe has received a mere $2,000. By contrast, the Oklahoma senator has received about $314,000 from the oil and gas industry in the same period of time; Boxer got less than $10,000. Oil and gas is not likely, however, to start shifting support to her now.

“We’re always looking to work with whomever is willing to be supportive of our interests, which are primarily to develop America’s natural gas,” Fuller said. “Boxer has never been particularly inclined to seek support from the oil and gas industry and in many ways she’s gone out of her way to challenge or attack the industry.”

Auto manufacturers, who have traditionally contributed to Republicans, may face less adversarial committee chairs than other industries. Michigan Rep. John Dingell, the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, comes from a district that relies heavily on the car industry. Dingell received at least $82,100 from auto manufacturing employees and political action committees in the 2006 election cycle—more than anyone else in Congress. Transportation union members and PACs gave him $36,250 that cycle. The Democrat, whose wife works for General Motors, has said his goal is to come up with a bill that cuts greenhouse emissions—but still has the support of automakers—and that protects auto industry jobs in Michigan. Dingell also has between $1.1 million and $2.1 million of his own money invested in the industry.

The auto industry has nearly doubled its lobbying efforts between 2001 and 2005, but most of the key players won’t increase the amount they spend on lobbying merely to rally against what now seems inevitable, Mignone of Brookings said. “It won’t be terribly effective to lobby against legislation now because there’s a fair amount of momentum and it’ll be like trying to stop a fast-moving train,” he said.

The agriculture industry, which has traditionally contributed to Republicans, is in the process of assessing the best methods to prevent what it sees as harmful policy–regulation of emissions from livestock and other farming practices. The farm industry is promoting policy that gives it a chance to play a role in developing ethanol and biodiesel fuels, said Allison Specht, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“The issue is a bit new to the industry, so we’re really looking at it critically. We’ll continue to look at how much we get engaged as the legislative process continues,” Specht said. The AFBF spent nearly $8 million on lobbying in 2005. Specht said global warming has become a large part of her agenda since the AFBF hired her from Capitol Hill at the start of the year. She said she expects the industry to lobby more surrounding the issue.

“Everybody will come with very sharp elbows. It is going to be really ugly.”

Other industries are hoping to be significant players in the conversation for the first time, which means finding their footing even as they come up against deeply entrenched interests. Christine Real de Azua, spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association said that although the group is “among the smaller players,” the industry’s message would be heard loud and clear. “Wind can deliver a lot in terms of electricity generation quickly on a short-term basis in a cost-effective way,” she said. The AWEA was the alternative energy industry’s third-largest political contributor in the 2006 election cycle, dividing $39,600 almost evenly between the two parties, a bipartisan trend Real de Azua predicts will continue.

The alternative energy industry overall, however, switched from giving more contributions to Democrats to giving 60 percent of its contributions to Republicans in the 2006 election cycle. A handful of companies that hadn’t contributed before got involved in 2006, many showing strong support for Republicans. The industry has nearly doubled the amount it spent on lobbying between 2001 and 2006. Politicians should expect even more lobbying by members of the industry, many of whom have been preoccupied with launching their companies in an environment that hasn’t always been friendly, said Brookings’s Mignone. “The venture capitalists have seen themselves sort of as rebels for awhile, so they’re not used to putting on suits and heading to Washington,” he said.

While various bills have already been proposed, the shape of the legislation will determine who gets involved, said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes all federal mandates and subsidies related to conventional and alternative energy. Although CEI believes the industries should oppose regulatory legislation, Ebell said the industries have “bought into the idea” that legislation is inevitable and now simply want to ensure the legislation is no more harmful to them than anyone else.

“Everybody will come with very sharp elbows,” Ebell said. “It is going to be really ugly.”

Given the public and scientific will to combat global warming, Mignone said he doesn’t think Congress will be tempted to prolong the debate in order to collect more contributions from the wealthy industries involved.

“A significant number of politicians feel that the climate change issue is extremely important and want to get something done sooner rather than later,” Mignone said. “Those who favor action seem to enjoy a reasonable amount of support from the public as well.”

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.